About that DHS Report…

Yesterday, a full-on madman walked into the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC carrying a “long gun”, and opened fire. He killed a security guard, and other guards returned fire (severely wounding the shooter).

The attacker turns out to be James von Brunn — an 88-year-old white supremacist with a long history of putrid hatefulness. He’s been wandering the twisted corridors of paranoia and conspiracy theories for decades (Times of London).

He is clearly a Holocaust denier – a belief decried by Mr Obama during his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo last week. Von Brunn bemoans that “Jews control all important sources of information”, and claims that there is a Jewish conspiracy to destroy the white gene pool. He also wrote: “America is a Third-World racial garbage-dump – stupid, ignorant, dead broke, and terminal. Whites LOVE their Enemies. Prepare to die, Whitey.” One of heroes he cites is World War II Real Admiral John Crommelin, a notorious anti-Semite who later ran for governor of Alabama.

This guy was crazy as a bed-bug.

As horrifying as the attack was, though, the online reactions as the story broke (and it came out VERY quickly) were positively jaw-dropping. My favorite moments yesterday came when those who were so sure it was a Muslim extremist attack discovered it was (**gasp!!**) a “white guy”.

It takes a fair amount of tunnel-vision, folks, to forget about the neo-Nazis when you’re talking about an anti-Semitic attack. Seriously.

As amusing as it is to poke fun at people caught with their prejudicial pants down, however, the political point-scoring going on is another matter altogether. It is singularly unhelpful to spin this up into a left vs right, strike/defend festival.

This von Brunn guy is a loon who evidently hated nearly everybody and everything, but he was anti-Semitic first and foremost — and as much as some would like to say that April’s DHS report did not apply to this guy, they’re just plain wrong.

He fits this paragraph to a tee (pdf, from page 4, with my emphasis to help you focus).

(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.” These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs. DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

This guy is exactly who the DHS was talking about in that section. He’d written at length about it, in fact (cache page link, since von Brunn’s online stuff is quickly disappearing):

The Rothschild empire was created by infiltrating every level of ALL Western governments. Through manipulation, bribery, slander, assassination, and control of the mass media, JEWS contrived to pit nation against nation, race against race, financing all sides in the resultant wars; then at exorbitant interest rates financing reconstruction of the devastated countries.

Even more importantly, he was giving clear signals of imminent action (WaPo):

“He said his Social Security had been cut and that he was barely making it,” de Nugent said. “He felt it was the direct result of someone in Washington looking at his Web site.” [...]

He was about to give away his computer, his primary connection to the fringe world of radical racists. He was living hand to mouth.

The e-mails were getting violent in tone: “It’s time to kill all the Jews.”

I’m sorry, but I cannot see any way to describe yesterday’s tragedy without mentally calling up that report.

Now, before you go off the deep end, pay attention here: “Right-wing extremist” is not synonymous with Republican or conservative, anymore than “left-wing extremist” is with Democrat or liberal.

The operative words are “wing” and “extremist”…. and von Brunn is quite obviously in the winged extremist category.

The problem with the April report wasn’t that certain radical ideologies were called out by the DHS. Clearly they were accurate. The issue was that their terminology was too easily loaded into rhetorical cannons and fired. I can’t help wondering whether this tragedy might conceivably have been avoided, had the political point-scorers not raised the roof about the perceived partisanship of that report.

17 Responses

Well stated. When this report came out many on the right took offense to it and thought that it was aimed at them.

If you have a closet full of guns, spend much of your time on extreme hate web sites, order mass quantaties of ammo and subscribe to extremist publications I would prefer the DHS has you on their radar screen.

“The problem with the April report wasn’t that certain radical ideologies were called out by the DHS. Clearly they were accurate. The issue was that their terminology was too easily loaded into rhetorical cannons and fired.”

That must be the explanation for why some LEAs were stopping folks with “Vote for Ron Paul” bumper stickers after the report was shared with local/state law enforcement. They must have been on the lookout for folks carrying rhetorical cannons without a permit. It certainly couldn’t have been the fact that the “terminology” used in the report might have cast a net that was far too wide. [/snark]

“I can’t help wondering whether this tragedy might conceivably have been avoided, had the political point-scorers not raised the roof about the perceived partisanship of that report.”

Depending on what types of actions the shooter took just prior to the attack, and to what extent his path and the paths of investigators crossed, I think it is quite possible the attack could have been prevented regardless of any rhetorical/partisan hoopla raised about the report. It isn’t as if this type of extremism has never been seen/heard of in this country before. I’m certain that the FBI was/is aware of the white-power, white-victory type of wackjob.

“The e-mails were getting violent in tone: “It’s time to kill all the Jews.”"

Uh… in the absence of other statements or direct threats (such as “… and I will be visiting the Holocaust Museum on June 10, 2009 with a rifle and the intent on killing me some”), I’m not sure this would have been enough to pick the guy up. If it was, heck the Feds should comb the comments on the average Chron article/political blog post, they could find more than enough potential nutjobs to fill up as much prison space as we could possibly build in the next decade or so.

And, in the event that he was singularly successful in covering his tracks (admittedly, some things are obvious in hindsight, but not so much so before the fact), here’s a hint: a man seen walking toward a museum, carrying a rifle (not exactly a concealable weapon) in broad daylight, might be a signal to the local beat cop (as well as anyone else who happens to spot him) that something ain’t right.

I really don’t like the term “crazy” used in relation to these people. They are not mentally ill. Their beliefs do not come from any disease or defect – their beliefs come out of ignorance and hate. They chose to believe the way they do — it is not forced on them nor does it just happen to them. It is a belief they seek and cultivate. They own responsibility for their beliefs and their actions that arise out of their beliefs. Each of these killers have met their political objective – to kill their perceived enemy and to harm their enemy’s political agenda. These right-wing extremists should not be given a pass on their terrorism and terrorist acts of murder and mayhem — not legally, politically, socially or culturally.

“If you have a closet full of guns, spend much of your time on extreme hate web sites, order mass quantaties of ammo and subscribe to extremist publications I would prefer the DHS has you on their radar screen.”

–

Mr. Koks,

We’d be friends if we knew each other; you’re a top-drawer example of the kind of well-reasoned, intelligent thought I admire in those with whom I usually disagree. I don’t reply to your posts much, but I read them with interest whenever our chron.com paths cross. I rarely agree, but sometimes I concur. This time, however, I’d like to ask you about your comments.

–

If I told you I’m repulsed by this 88-year-old cretin’s actions, and wholeheartedly condemn just about everything about his existence, I’d expect you to take me at my word. (I am, and I do, by the way). But I qualify for fully 50% of your criteria for the DHS watch list – and I’m not sure the fact that I own several rifles, shotguns and handguns (they’re even stored in a closet) means I need to be monitored, by you or anyone else. That I keep on hand enough ammunition to enjoy a day at the range (and with a couple hours’ shooting, that can be a few hundred rounds) shouldn’t single me out for surveillance. Might I add that these activities violate precisely zero laws?

–

Surfing disgusting websites and reading half-wit (actually, no-wit) propaganda is also vile, reprehensible, and completely legal. But that’s a constitutional argument too nuanced for a dumb redneck like me. Skip the hate-speech part for me if you will, and just tell me why my choice of weekend hobby merits a chaperone from DHS.

Not wanting to step on any toes here, perhaps you missed the fact that GlennKoks made a statement of deductive reasoning? i.e., if 1, 2, 3, and 4 are true, then, Y is true? In deductive reasoning ALL of the premises must be met in order for the conclusion to also be true. Therefore, “qualifying for 50%” won’t cut it. You must qualify 100% for Glenn’s conclusion, that you should be on the DHS watchlist to be true. Had Glenn wanted to accept 50%, he would have had to have used the word OR instead of AND. IOW, you would not qualify for Glenn preference of you being on the watch list.

RockheadedMama, you make a good point, and I guess I whiffed on the whole necessary vs. sufficient part. You have to understand my position, though; as an ardent supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, and a person who has never (and will never) point a muzzle at anything more precious than a piece of cardboard, it sickens me to see the linking of firearms enthusiasts and any-wing extremists. They are not mutually inclusive, and many articles and posters (though admittedly not glennkoks or this article) seem to think they are. I enjoy my sport, and I know that in order to continue enjoying it it’s incumbent upon me – and other level-headed sportspersons – to advocate for those who are not interested in causing harm to carbon based lifeforms. And I appreciate, for the record, that you chose to go the extra mile by not only pointing out the flaw in my reasoning, but going so far as to explain those high-falutin’ concepts in a way that even a hillbilly like me could almost understand it. And as I intimated in my first post, the notion that neither glenn’s nor anyone else’s preference means much of anything when viewed through the lens of the Bill of Rights is way too sophisticated an argument for me to try to make.

QforGlennkoks: Your concern regarding the right to bear arms versus the public’s right/need to feel/be safe from people who would do them harm (and often from a great distance) has been an ongoing concern of respectful and responsible citizens since the inception of our country. It is one of those hard questions that we will probably be falling first on one side of the equation and then the other for many more years. And I don’t think that is a bad thing — it just means we are trying to keep an equilibrium on the subject.

In my opinion, we need to be careful when one of us falls on the other side of the equation than the side you are on — wanting to make sure that irresponsible people don’t have easy access to guns is not the same thing as wanting to disarm every person who owns a gun. In fact, there are many gun owners who support pretty strict rules and regulations regarding owning, carrying and shooting guns. Many people see the fallacy in the argument that gun control means “only criminals will have guns” and realize that responsible people have nothing to fear from gun registration — especially since the SCOTUS has ruled on the right to own them.

I think Glennkoks is correct – those whose radical ideologies include extreme hate aimed at their opposition and, who are also heavily involved in stockpiling weapons and ammo, need to be carefully watched. For the good of all of us.

btw, be careful about using hillbilly in too negative of a sense — I come from a long line of that hardy stock and am married to one – the best thing that ever happened to me was marrying that hillbilly. AND, some of us are flat land hillbillys and proud of it!

QforGK, Thanks for your kind words. First I have no problem with you having shotguns, handguns, Rifles for hunting etc., I firmly believe that we have the right to bear arms. Im not so sure that right should extend to assault rifles, AK’s AR 15′s etc.

If you like going to the range and popping off a few clips, good for you. You are well within your rights and its just fun.

However, if you also subscribe to a skinhead magazine, attend Clan meetings and have a swastica tattoo. Im seeing a potentially dangerous pattern here.

I don’t know you but your post’s are intelligent, well thought out and very civil. You are anything but a dumb redneck as you described yourself.

RockheadedMama: I cannot tell you what a pleasure it is to discuss something so important with a person who thinks about things with an unfettered mind. It’s a shame all the dialogue on these boards isn’t as civil, pleasant and inspiring.

I mean us hillbillies no malice. After all, George Strait once worked the phrase “transcendental meditation” into his lyrics, proving that even we Texas-folk have a shot at attaining Nirvana.

I must sign off for the day; I’ve been paid for a full day, and should catch up on the work I’ve neglected while reading this page. But I’ll leave you with my greatest concern: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The terms Republican, Neo Con, and Conservative have become interchangeable with “Right wing nut job extremist”. I fail to see the difference between “Islamic fundamental terrorists” with “Christian fundamentalist terrorist” except the latter has done all the domestic killings as of late.